<quoted text>No! you homicidally stupid moron, that we're here is proof of creation!Unless of course you have proof of inanimate matter self organizing into life!The only proof you provide is of your own religious stupiditythe puddle people

Poor bohart, he still does not know that the word is "evidence", not proof.

Now we do have evidence for our claims. What evidence do you have for yours?

And the fact that we are here is not proof, or even evidence, for creation. You are making a false assumption there. That topic after all is what is being debated.

<quoted text>Poor bohart, he still does not know that the word is "evidence", not proof.Now we do have evidence for our claims. What evidence do you have for yours?And the fact that we are here is not proof, or even evidence, for creation. You are making a false assumption there. That topic after all is what is being debated.

<quoted text>Nope. Because abiogenesis is not a doctrine to believe in. Pity you cannot get your head around this. Its a hypothesis, or really a series of hypotheses, to test. Can you see the difference?No faith, no belief. Just science and hard work.Noted - Creationists just think scientists believe something different than they do. What they don't get is that we don't believe in "believing in", the way they do. About anything.Skepticism - the refusal to accept any claim not backed by evidence.Skepticism - the ability to live with doubt where there is no defining evidence for or against a claim. That's it.Wakey wakey bohart. We are not even working from the same playbook as you.

Your statement about creationist's understanding of how scientist approach science is a core issue. The basis of their attacks are predicated on the idea that scientific theories are just another story in a book. It is a weakness, but a very difficult one to get around.

<quoted text>No! you homicidally stupid moron, that we're here is proof of creation!Unless of course you have proof of inanimate matter self organizing into life!The only proof you provide is of your own religious stupiditythe puddle people

So this your idea of "scientific thinking", that lack of proof for one hypothesis is proof of another? Not even a D minus for that feeble attempt.

It appeared to be quite appropriate, as the 'answer' was just as good.

Six_Of_One wrote:

Q: "How did the universe come to be?"A: "There was a god who created it.".That really, really does sound like an answer to the question.Now, is the answer correct? I cannot say.Does it give more information than was asked (like WHICH god, or what is God, etc.) No.But it is an answer.

If one is satisfied that someone did something, somehow, somewhere at sometime then I suppose so.

Six_Of_One wrote:

My first post was merely asking about the point of this forum (which you answered very nicely for me in the second half of your response, thank you).I didn't see an necessary conflict between creation and evolution because the two answered very different questions in my mind.

There doesn't have to be a conflict, as with religious beliefs you are free to believe in whatever you wish. There are even some scientists who accept evolution, and their religious beliefs are that God was resonsible for life and the universe. Science can't validate the religious side of things of course but if that's not a worry for you then that's okay.

On the other hand there are those whose religious beliefs are more important than reality itself. Science shows us one thing but they say it's like another because their god did it differently. Bohart for example rejects both evolution and abiogenesis because he places limits on an entity which creates universes as a hobby for fun. If such a being exists there is no reason it could not have used both chemical abiogenesis and evolution to get us where we are today.

But nay he say, life MUST have come about via magical poofing out of pile of dirt, spare rib and a talking snake - I mean, lizard. All because nothing must contradict his old religious book written by ancient goat-herders who thought the Earth was flat. If he wants to believe The Flinstones is a science documentary, that's fine. But as long as he doesn't teach it in public schools, as not only is it stupid, but also illegal. Whereas at least with evolution, contrary to his anti-reality claims, it can be scientifically demonstrated.

<quoted text>Your statement about creationist's understanding of how scientist approach science is a core issue. The basis of their attacks are predicated on the idea that scientific theories are just another story in a book. It is a weakness, but a very difficult one to get around.I like your avatar. Interesting choice.

Yes, few of them seem to realise that we not only accept different things as true, but we have a different process for accepting that anything is true. The funniest example is when someone trots out here and confidently proclaims that Darwin recanted on evolution on his deathbed. As if it would matter! They think it should matter to evolutionists, and we know why it does not matter one iota. The truth or falseness of the death bed story is not even relevant.

No! you homicidally stupid moron, that we're here is proof of creation!

No, that we are here is proof that life began, period. That's when you examine the term abiogenesis at its basest level, it MEANS life began.

So far the only scientific hypothesis that has been postulated for HOW that occurred is the gradual development of life through chemical processes. Another alternative has never been proposed.

bohart wrote:

Unless of course you have proof of inanimate matter self organizing into life!

Bo, bo bo bo bo....(sigh)

You claim I am homocidally stupid, but HOW many times have I PERSONALLY informed you that chemistry is NOT inanimate? In fact it is COMPLETELY the opposite. Therefore since you can't HELP but repeatedly make this same mistake over and over again over YEARS of posting, there are only two possibilities:

1 - You are deliberately misrepresenting our position due to your inability to counter it rationally.

2 - You are MONUMENTALLY thick.

bohart wrote:

The only proof you provide is of your own religious stupiditythe puddle people

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.